Ethics In A Nutshell
Ethics in a NutshellAn Intro for Ethics BowlersThird Edition (now with YouTube lectures)Matt Deaton, Ph.D.
Ethics in a Nutshell: An Intro for Ethics BowlersThird Edition (now with YouTube lectures)by Matt Deaton, Ph.D. 2011, 2013, 2015, 2018 J. Matt Deaton www.MattDeaton.comWhile the revised and expanded edition of Ethics in a Nutshell: ThePhilosopher’s Approach to Morality in 100 Pages available atAmazon.com here is for purchase for classroom and other purposes,this third ethics bowler edition may be reproduced, duplicated, printedand otherwise shared, in part or in whole, for ethics bowl-related use,so long as the original author is given credit, a link is provided toEthicsBowl.org, and any monies generated by its usage are donated tothe National High School Ethics Bowl (nhseb.unc.edu). So go ahead—email it, print it, post it on your website—whatever you like. Happyethics bowling! MattDedicated to Justin, Emily and Noah: may the proliferationof ethics bowls ensure a more just world for you and yours.Love, DadCover art “Human Pods” by ethics bowl supporter and artist AshleyAddair of AshleyDawnAddair.com1
Supplement Ethics in a Nutshell with videolecutres, an “Ask Matt” interface, samplereflection questions and more atEthicsinaNutshell.org
Supplement your ethics bowl prep with caseanalyses, coaching tips and more atEthicsBowl.org
TABLE OF CONTENTSChapter 1: Introduction. 1Nutshell in a Nutshell . 1What’s Philosophy and How’s It Done? . 3Chapter 2: What’s “Ethics?” . 6Philosophical Ethics, Religion, and Public Discourse . 6Enabling Inter-faith Dialogue .7Chapter 3: Why Ethics Isn’t Ice Cream . 10A Negative Argument . 12A Positive Argument . 14Rejecting Cultural Subjectivism, Too . 16Confidence and Humility . 17Chapter 4: Three Key Distinctions . 19Prescriptive vs. Predictive. 19Morality vs. Psychology . 20Morality vs. Legality. 21Chapter 5: The Four Dominant Ethical Theories . 25Kantianism . 25Consequentialism/Utilitarianism . 31Feminist Care Ethics . 38Virtue Ethics. 40Chapter 6: All-Things-Considered . 43Chapter 7: Argument by Analogy . 47Singer’s Drowning Child . 47
Jarvis-Thomson’s Violinist . 48How to Analyze Arguments by Analogy . 50Chapter 8: Moral Intuitions & Coherence . 53The Value of Our Moral Intuitions . 53The Value of Coherence . 55Chapter 9: Conclusion . 58Further Reading . 60Appendix . 61What’s Ethics Bowl?. 61How to Find an Ethics Bowl . 62Where to Find Ethics Bowl Resources . 62Questions Answered . 62Paperback Edition . 63More Phil Vids? . 641
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTIONWelcome to the world of philosophical ethics. Apart fromimproving your performance as an ethics bowler, studying thephilosopher’s approach to morality is almost certain to make you amore reflective and sophisticated moral reasoner, as well as a moreobservant and articulate person. It may also make your brain hurt but usually only temporarily.NUTSHELL IN A NUTSHELLEthics in a Nutshell covers the basics of any good introductorycollege ethics course: what academic philosophy is, how philosophicalethics is distinct from other forms of moral reasoning, problems withmoral subjectivism (or the view that morality is a mere matter ofpersonal opinion, with all opinions being equally good), the nism/Consequentialism, Virtue Ethics and Feminist CareEthics, the essential role of our moral intuitions, how to construct andevaluate moral arguments (especially moral arguments by analogy),and how to arrive at an all-things-considered view that balances andtakes into account all of the above. Much of this is foundational stuffethics bowl judges will expect (or at least desire) that you understand.But it’s also useful for your personal moral decisions.1
However, the goal of Nutshell isn’t to replace whatever methodyou currently use to think through moral questions. Rather, its intentis to expose you to the philosopher’s approach with the hope that you’llfind some of it worth making your own. You be the judge of what’sworth taking and what’s worth leaving—let reason and common sensebe your guides.For a little historical context, I wrote the first version of Ethics ina Nutshell for students in my applied ethics courses at the Universityof Tennessee around 2008, where I had the pleasure of fessionalResponsibility, Engineering Ethics and Bioethics—first as a graduateteaching associate, and briefly as a fulltime lecturer. Since then, thanksto the feedback and encouragement of many generous readers, 1 thebook’s been a living document. I expanded and revised it for the highschool ethics bowl community, then revised it again for students in myethics classes at the University of Texas at Tyler, published a revisedMany thanks to Ben Masaoka, ethics bowl coach at Roosevelt High School in Seattle, and RobertaIsraeloff, friend and former colleague at the Squire Family Foundation, for their help improving thefirst edition. Similar thanks to Jennifer Everett, philosophy professor at DePauw University inIndiana, for correcting my characterization of Peter Singer as British (that cool accent is Australian,not British). Many thanks to Andrew Petti, ethics bowl coach at Dwight-Englewood School in NewJersey, for some clarifying suggestions. Kudos to Avon High School teacher and ethics bowl coachAllison Kelly in Avon, Indiana for spotting a typo in the very last paragraph on the very last page –it was a pleasure meeting you and your team at the 2015 National High School Ethics Bowl. Similarthanks to Kelsey Walker, ethics bowl undergraduate intern at the Center for Philosophy forChildren at Washington University, for pointing out a few typos on what was once page 54. Thanksto Jett (the mysterious emailer) for pointing out a minor typo as well. And thanks to Joel Turnbull,high school teacher and Ethics Olympiad coach in South Australia, for catching a Kantian personstypo as well. *If you have questions or suggestions on how this book might be improved, pleaseemail me a matt (at) mattdeaton.com. Maybe you’ll be in a footnote in the 4th edition :-)12
and expanded paperback edition in 2017, and in 2018 updated thisopen source ethics bowl version with YouTube lecture videos.Apart from a few wording changes, the biggest updates in thisthird ethics bowler edition are those YouTube lecture vids. Severalwere recorded at my former home, one floating down a river, and ahandful at various landmarks in New York City – all intended tocomplement and clarify what you’ll read below. You can access themby clicking the chapter titles if you’re reading this in PDF, by visitingEthicsinaNutshell.org or YouTube.com/MattDeatonPhD.But enough on the book and what it covers. Before we tackle thephilosopher’s approach to morality, we need a clearer idea of exactlywhat academic philosophy is, and how philosophers go about theirbusiness.WHAT’S PHILOSOPHY AND HOW’S IT DONE?Academic philosophy is the reason-based attempt to answer life’sbig non-empirical questions, “non-empirical” simply referring toquestions that we can’t directly test in the physical world such as “Whatdoes it mean to know something?” or “How can we be sure our sensesaccurately depict reality?” or “What’s the morally correct thing to do?”Philosophers go about answering questions like these in ascientific fashion by forming, evaluating and revising arguments,which are composed of a series of claims, called premises, intended tologically support another claim, called the conclusion. Notice how3
“argument” and “conclusion” are used in a special, technical sense inthis context, the former not referring to a quarrel between two people,and the latter not referring to the end of a story. A conclusion couldvery well be placed near the beginning of an argument, and anargument could very well be fully developed by a single author.While most philosophers’ writing is more subtle, anytime you seethe words “therefore” or “thus,” a conclusion is likely nearby. Similarly,the words “because” or “since” commonly precede premises. Forexample, here’s a deceptively simple ethical argument:Because mammals can experience pleasure and pain, theirinterests therefore deserve consideration.On the surface we have an observation hastily followed by adeclaration. But there’s actually a complex argument here waiting tobe unpacked. It rests on dozens of implicit assumptions about why thesense of pleasure and pain is morally significant, why moralsignificance is tied to an obligation to acknowledge and respectinterests, and even what “interests,” “deserves” and other key termsreally mean (just like instrumental precision is super important to thescientist, conceptual precision is super important to the philosopher).Philosophers construct, share, evaluate and revise argumentslike this one in a collective effort to answer non-empirical questionssimilar to how scientists use hypotheses, experiments, observation andanalysis to answer empirical questions. And just like any good scientist,4
any good philosopher is willing to change his or her mind on most anyissue if given good enough reason to do so. Both follow where reasonand evidence lead.Their willingness to change their minds doesn’t mean thatphilosophers (or scientists) don’t possess strongly-held views. It justmeans they recognize their fallibility, and strive to align themselveswith the best views, regardless of what they presently happen to think.Good philosophers are therefore simultaneously smart andhumble, which is a stark contrast with the one-sided, defend-yourview-to-the-death approach modeled by attorneys, politicians andadvocates of various moral causes you’re apt to see on TV or the web.If a movie character would help, think of Spock. He’s serious,logical, and very confident in his reasoning abilities. But at the sametime his devotion to truth requires that he remain open to newinformation and willing to change his mind.A young Spock actually recites the definition of the philosophicalethical term “supererogatory” during a flashback of his schooling in the2009 Star Trek film.2 Moments later he pummels bullies for insultinghis mom, and eventually exacts revenge on time-traveling Romulansfor destroying his home planet.But that’s enough Star Trek for now. Welcome to philosophicalethics!An action is supererogatory when it is morally praiseworthy, but not morally obligatory. Forexample, “Matt livening a somewhat boring section with Star Trek references was supererogatory.”25
CHAPTER 2: WHAT’S “ETHICS?”The U.S. Senate has an “ethics” committee, many companieshave an official “ethics” code, and attorneys are required to take“ethics” training. But when academic philosophers use the term“ethics” they’re using the term in a distinct and special way. Within theworld of academic philosophy, “ethics” refers to the reason-guidedstudy of what we morally ought to do.This isn’t to say that senators, companies and lawyers don’t usereason (most certainly do), or don’t make decisions about what wemorally ought to do (most certainly try). It just means that whatdistinguishes the philosopher’s approach is that the ultimategrounding for their views is reason itself, as opposed to voterpreferences, company policy, or legal precedent.PHILOSOPHICAL ETHICS, RELIGION, AND PUBLIC DISCOURSEReligious persons sometimes worry that thinking through ethicalquestions from any perspective other than a religious perspectivemight be disrespectful to their faith. However, many professionalphilosophers are devoutly religious, and many religious professionalsare well studied in philosophy. Some separate their personal religiousconvictions from their philosophical reasoning, keeping the two realmsdivided in their heads. “Reason leads me to conclude X,” they might6
say, “but my faith leads me to conclude not X.”How people reconcile conflicts between their non-religious andreligious views is of course up to them. I personally use philosophy toinform my religious understanding and vice versa. Along with manyothers, I figure if a creator gave us these big brains, he, she, or it wouldexpect and want us to use them—not simply to better understand thenatural world for scientific and technological purposes, but the moralworld so we can make better decisions.Therefore it would perhaps be a waste, and maybe even adishonor, if we didn’t utilize our intellectual abilities to think throughlife’s big questions, including big questions concerning what wemorally ought to do. You’re of course free to use the philosopher’sapproach to morality however you see fit. The point is simply thatphilosophy isn’t necessarily hostile to religion. In fact, many believephilosophy and religion are quite complementary.ENABLING INTER-FAITH DIALOGUEOne benefit of being able to think through moral and politicalissues from a philosophical perspective is that it facilities conversationwith virtually anyone, whereas only being able to think from a religiousperspective limits deliberation to those who happen to share your faith.For example, if in discussing the death penalty I assert a position thatrests on a key passage from the New Testament, my argument mayimpress Christians, but it isn’t likely to convince an Agnostic, Jew,7
Muslim, Atheist, Hindu, or any other non-Christian. These personsmay respect the content of the New Testament insofar as theyacknowledge that it is important to and carries weight for me. But fromtheir perspective, it has little further authority.Similarly, if someone were to respond to my position (my currentposition—philosophers are always willing to change their minds) onthe death penalty by citing the Koran, their point would have littlepurchase, for I’m not Muslim. I would recognize that they consider thebook holy, and respect its content insofar as I respect them. Butscripture from the Koran doesn’t carry nearly the same weight for nonMuslims as it does for Muslims. The same is true for most all religioustexts.Thankfully, philosophical ethics can facilitate discussionamongst persons from a variety of backgrounds, committed to a varietyof religious and areligious perspectives. This is because philosophicalethics utilizes considerations almost everyone recognizes as morallyrelevant, and the fact that philosophers judge reasons and argumentsbased on their logical force.This ability to transcend “comprehensive doctrines” enablesmoral progress where it might otherwise flounder, which is especiallyuseful for those of us living in multicultural democracies, where we riskdisrespecting our fellow citizens when our policy preferences are notbased in reasons they can appreciate.3 In fact, some (past president of3For example, imagine how disrespected you would feel if you were imprisoned for breaking a law8
the American Philosophical Association and Christian philosopherRobert Audi for one) have argued thinking through issues from a“public” perspective, and engaging in open deliberation on politicalissues that affect us all, is actually required by the Golden Rule—amatter of treating others the way we would like to be treated.that could only be justified by referencing Zoroastrianism.9
CHAPTER 3: WHY ETHICS ISN’T ICE CREAMWhile citing religious texts is a popular way to answer moralquestions, many people refer to their upbringing, reflect on theirsociety’s values, and in tough cases simply flip a coin. “Heads, and thedeath penalty is sometimes morally permissible – tails, and the deathpenalty is never morally permissible.” Most people actually mix theseapproaches, drawing on their religious faith, familial and social values,and flipping coins only as a last resort. Why do philosophers insist thatwe use reason to answer ethical questions? Because it has proven itselfuseful in answering other sorts of questions.For example, scientists don’t rely on traditional knowledge orpublic opinion polls when trying to uncover the complexities of thenatural world. If they did, we might still believe the earth is flat. Rather,scientists gather evidence, examine reasons for and againsthypotheses, and draw conclusions based on the logical force behindthose reasons.Philosophers use reason in a similar way, in an attempt to answersimilarly important questions. The difference is that while scientistsconcern themselves with empirical questions about physical things,and enjoy the luxury of producing testable data, philosophers concernthemselves with non-empirical questions for which conclusiveevidence is almost impossible to pin down.10
For example, the temperature of a planet’s surface can bemeasured with a thermometer, and a meteor can be examined fortraces of DNA using an electron microscope. There’s no arguing with athermometer or microscope: the average temperature of the surface ofMars is either -67 degrees Fahrenheit or it’s not; that meteor your luckycousin found either contains traces of DNA or it doesn’t. These areempirical, testable questions that we can conclusively answer byexamining the physical world.However, determining whether an action is morally permissible,impermissible, forbidden or obligatory is a much less straightforwardendeavor. No “goodometer” or “moralscope” exists to assist us whenattempting to answer whether mining minerals from Mars would bemorally permissible, or whether attempting to clone DNA sequencesfound on a meteor would be impermissible.4This lack of a way to measure moral questions makes moral viewsmore contentious. Without the benefit of a goodometer or moralscope,it’s more difficult to decisively settle disagreements among people withconflicting moral views—and boy, do people seem to hold conflictingmoral views!But does this mean there’s no such thing as moral right andwrong? Does it mean ethics, morality—what we ought to do—is all justa matter of personal opinion?4I know of no such DNA sequences found on meteors. But wouldn’t that be cool?11
A NEGATIVE ARGUMENTPeople sometimes hastily conclude that since ethi
Chapter 1: Introduction. 1 Nutshell in a Nutshell . a Nutshell for students in my applied ethics courses at the University of Tennessee around 2008, where I had the pleasure of teaching Contemporary Moral Issues, Business Ethics, Professional .
Sampling for the Ethics in Social Research study The Ethics in Social Research fieldwork 1.3 Structure of the report 2. TALKING ABOUT ETHICS 14 2.1 The approach taken in the study 2.2 Participants' early thoughts about ethics 2.2.1 Initial definitions of ethics 2.2.2 Ethics as applied to research 2.3 Mapping ethics through experiences of .
"usiness ethics" versus "ethics": a false dichotomy "usiness decisions versus ethics" Business ethics frequently frames things out, including ethics Framing everything in terms of the "bottom line" Safety, quality, honesty are outside consideration. There is no time for ethics.
Code of Ethics The Code of Ethics defines the standards and the procedures by which the Ethics Committee operates.! More broadly, the Code of Ethics is designed to give AAPM Members an ethical compass to guide the conduct of their professional affairs.! TG-109! Code of Ethics The Code of Ethics in its current form was approved in
5 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION This book covers the basic framework of what you’d likely learn in any good introductory college ethics course: what academic philosophy is, how philosophical ethics is distinct from other forms of
Values and Ethics for Care Practice Sue Cuthbert and Jan Quallington Cuthbert & Quallington Values and Ethics for Care Practice www.lanternpublishing.co.uk 9 781908 625304 ISBN 978-1-908-625-30-4 Values and Ethics for Care Practice Values and ethics are integral to the provision, practice and delivery of patient-centred health and social care.
BUSINESS ETHICS (Please note that these notes are not comprehensive and therefore additional reading is recommended from diverse sources) Books Ethics and Mgmt by Hosmer Business Ethics by Shekher Business Ethics by Chakrobarthy (Oxford publication) Syllabus 1. Evolution of thought of ethics in busi
1 Introduction to Medical Law and Ethics Dr. Gary Mumaugh Objectives Explain why knowledge of law and ethics is important to health care providers Recognize the importance of a professional code of ethics Distinguish among law, ethics, bioethics, etiquette, and protocol Define moral values and explain how they relate to law, ethics and etiquette
Year 12 Opportunities for Prospective Applicants Thanks to the outreach work of universities and colleges, professional bodies and widening participation charities, there now exist a wide range of opportunities for UK maintained-sector students to explore Higher Education in the years before they come to apply. While many providers offer opportunities for KS4 pupils, or even younger year .
